Did the Flood really happen?

Can you explain your rationale? What prevents sediments from accumulating flat and horizontal in a gulf? Even if we postulate that the gulf bottom was not originally flat and horizontal, accumulating sediments will gradually tend that way. This is the first time you or anyone has mentioned salt domes in this thread, so no one has made any claims about how long salt domes take to form. I don't know what your point is, but I took a look at the Formation section of the Wikipedia article on Salt Domes. A salt layer won't even begin to form a dome until the density of the strata above is greater than the salt layer, which requires a great deal of overburden in order to compact the above strata to be denser than the salt layer, which can take millions of years. Salt apparently resists compaction because of its crystalline structure. Once the salt layer possesses sufficient buoyancy it can take more millions of years to form domes. The time it takes to form is a function of the strength of the overlying strata. Faulting can assist the process. Once a dome has begun to form it can push up through strata that are less dense than itself because of the buoyancy of the main salt layer pushing up from below, and overburden pressure on the salt layer (like squeezing a tube), all this focused onto the dome because of salt's inherent plasticity. This seems unlikely in the extreme. Why do you think this? You typing something like, "Salt domes have probably been rising since the Flood," is not evidence. I don't think you know what evidence is. It can often be hard to decipher your meaning, but please tell me you're not saying that the Gulf strata being thicker in the middle than at the margins is due to being submerged while salt domes form. Deep sea cores all around the world show fine sediment at the top and all the way down. It becomes more compacted with depth, but those cores have no boundary with something else that could be interpreted as some original geologic column.--Percy

First of all, a couple of links for further reading:Plate Tectonics Map - Plate Boundary Map
A Map of Tectonic Plates and Their Boundaries There is 3 types of plate boundaries:1) Divergent - Essentially synonymous with mid-ocean spreading centers, the notable exception being the east Africa rift valley, which is rather a proto-mid-ocean spreading center. These are areas of tension (aka negative pressure). Not directly relevant to continental deformations.2) Convergent - Essentially synonymous with subduction zones, mostly at ocean crust/continental crust boundaries, although there are also ocean crust/ocean crust subduction zones. The big example is the Pacific ring of fire.An exception to being subduction zones, is the case of continental plate/continental plate collision, the great example being the north end of the India plate. Another exception would be what I'll call obduction zones - Oceanic crust being thrust up upon continental crust, resulting in continental ophiolite complexes.3) Transform faults - Such as the San Andreas fault in California and the Alpine fault in New Zealand. The bulk of those plate boundaries are mid-ocean spreading centers. The ocean/continent boundaries are mostly subduction zones or transform faults.An "off the cuff" summary. I'm sure there could be some quibbles about the details. The origins of the Appalachians is complex, but a big part of it was that the was a continental/continental collision at one or more points in time, when the Atlantic Ocean basin closed.Moose

quote:

---

We can SEE, we can UNDERSTAND, how tectonic forces alter the land, push up mountains, twist the strata and so on. The physics involved is really very clear.

---

And we can see and understand that the same can happen to the sea bed, because there is no relevant difference.

quote:

---

You just keep asserting that there's no reason why the sea floor couldn't rise to land level but that's no argument.

---

Sure it is. You need a reason why it can’t happen - it’s all the Earth’s crust after all, underwater or not there’s no big difference.

quote:

---

You have no mechanism in mind for how it could happen.

---

Sure I do and I’ve been saying so all along. It’s exactly the same mechanism that acts in the land. Because there is no relevant difference. You claim that the seabed must be exempt from these forces but you have offered no explanation, nor any reason to think so other than that you decree it.

quote:

---

What pushes it up?

---

The same forces that push up the land, of course.

quote:

---

A mountain is not the sea floor rising, it's just a mountain on the sea floor.

---

The region around the Grand Canyon is not a mountain either, none the less it has risen. What stops the same happening to a different portion of the Earth’s crust that happens to be underwater ?

If by "sea bed" you mean oceans that are over the continental shelf or seas that were from a greater sea transgression onto the continents, then I would agree with you. If by "sea bed" you mean oceanic crust and sediments, then there is a big difference - The continents have a general specific gravity ("density") of 2.7 while the oceanic crust is 3.0. Again, significant density difference. See isostasy.Moose

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up the bus there, honey. This is a science thread. If you think the Flood really happened then don't cite your religious book. Provide scientific evidence.I know your answer is going to be something like, "I've provided a lot of scientific evidence, but you Old Earth defenders just ignore it." That is false. A lot of effort is expended dissecting the stories you make up. Your stories are devoid of evidence and violate the laws of physics and of geology. You baselessly declare explanations of your errors wrong, then repeat your stories and claim that they are too evidence. But the truth is that you only think the Flood was real because you assume your religious book is true, not because of any evidence.You need to stop telling stories that you wish were true and start following the evidence where it leads.--Percy

I don’t believe we are talking about oceanic crust. Faith is disputing that marine sediments in mountains could have been uplifted.Not that I think that the higher density is sufficient in itself (as the existence of oceanic ridges would suggest)

So then tell us: what is your basis in observed natural phenomena for imagining the Flood?--Percy

Why don't you stop your misrepresentations? Try honesty for a change.The truth is that you a) assume the Flood because of a religious book while participating in a science thread; b) make up impossible stories; c) declare yourself the definer of reality; d) ignore most responses; and e) work hard at keeping yourself uninformed.Your few cursory encounters with evidence are rife with incomprehension, such as the UK cross section.I again suggest you don't make claims about yourself because while there are rules against becoming personal participants can of course address and rebut and offer their views on any claims you make. You are not the topic. If you have Flood evidence that is stronger than the evidence of geology then it will win out. Muster your evidence and organize it into coherent arguments. Stop making ill thought out claims off the top of your head, like that the Gulf of Mexico is not a sea (again, not to reintroduce that topic into this thread - that topic should be discussed over at The Gulf of Mexico is Not a Sea).--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.

Why don't you stop falsely accusing me?I have no idea what you mean about my making myself the topic. I suspect it's the result of people attacking me personally for my arguments so I respond in kind.I believe I HAVE shown evidence enough to persuade others at least that there is something to the Flood claims, but it hasn't happened and I've stopped caring, long long ago. All I can do is continue to see how the same evidence shows up elsewhere, as that I found in the Grand Canyon area does seem to be present in the UK cross section.I just posted on the subject of the Gulf on the designated thread in an attempt to be clearer about how I arrived at my view of it. Perhaps that will clarify.

The Bible is the source of my thinking on this subject so it IS a scientific text on this subject.

The tectonic pressure on the land is lateral. How would such lateral pressure lift the sea floor?

the same way it does on land

Does not follow logically. The Bible is not a scientific text and is not credible evidence for a fludde. OK, it can be your inspiration, but to convince scientists you need measurements and observations of the real world.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Thisis the same as the uplift of the Colorado plateau from our familiar cross section. It has the same tilt as the UK cross section: Here's a closeup of the tilted portion. It's tilted just like the strata in the UK diagram: Now imagine that this tilted portion of the Colorado Plateau had experienced erosion similar to the UK. It would look like this, though the terrain would be more irregular - I can only draw a straight line since I'm using div blocks and character graphics: If the tilt being in the opposite direction to the UK cross section makes it difficult to make a visual comparison, here's the same thing turned 180°: And here's the UK cross section for comparison. It's the same thing, with tilted layers eroded down to produce a horizontal sequence on the surface: --Percy

I just finished Message 1169 where I first started it so that's next on the agenda and I'll have to come back to this post.